Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Westminster City Council (Cleveland Street Infirmary) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (BRITISH DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic representation the British Government at present has at Athens; whether he: is satisfied that the interests of British trade are being safeguarded; and whether the Greek Government has been informed of the steps it should take before complete diplomatic relations are resumed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE far FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): His Majesty's Government are at present represented at Athens by a Chargé d'Affaires. In regard to the second part of this question, there is no reason to suppose that the commercial relations between the two countries are suffering from the absence of official diplomatic relations. In regard to the third part of this question, His Majesty's Government cannot seek to impose any particular conditions on the Greek Government, nor can they give any undertaking beforehand to resume normal relations on certain terms. Such resumption must rather await proof, by experience, of the stability and good faith of the Greek Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that we have had M. Venizelos here representing the Greek Government which we are not fully prepared to recognise?

Mr. McNEILL: That does not arise.

Mr. HARRIS: Is there not a constitutional monarch belonging to the same Royal Family as the preceding King?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no doubt that the hon. Member is quite as well informed on that point as I am.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

CONSORTIUM (LOANS).

Dr. CHAPPLE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Consortium has at any time considered the grant of loans to China for purely railway work; whether the completion of the Hukuang line, which will connect the north and south of China, and therefore tend to unification and tranquillity, has come before this body in respect to the provision of the needed funds; and whether, in view of the advantage to all railway development in China, the British Government will view sympathetically financial proposals which may bring this about?

Mr. McNEILL: Railway construction in China, and the completion of the Hukuang railway in particular, has been from the first one of the primary objects of the Consortium and has frequently been under discussion; its advantages are fully appreciated but conditions in China have hitherto proved an insuperable obstacle to progress. In reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer to the answer which I gave on the 29th March to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has the Consortium functioned in any way since the War?

Mr. McNEILL: It is in existence. Whether it has done any business or not I cannot say.

Dr. CHAPPLE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Consortium with respect to China has, throughout its existence for the last few years, either offered any loan on any conditions to China, or been approached by China with a request to grant such a loan; whether the Consortium commands the confidence of the Chinese Government; and whether he has any information showing that the need for
co-ordinating the point of view of so many countries tends to delay and lack of practical utility?

Mr. McNEILL: The Consortium has on several occasions during the last two years been approached by successive Chinese Governments with a view to obtaining a loan, but negotiations have up to the present led to no result. As regards the second part of the question, the presumption is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I do not think that the utility of the Consortium has been in any way impaired by the delays which are, to some extent, necessarily involved in any form of international collaboration.

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: Who represents this country on the Consortium?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say without notice.

RAILWAYS (LOANS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China has at any time made default on any Government railway loans; whether he can state the guarantee for the payment of interest and principal on the Hukuang railway loan; whether the other railway lines in China, built and completed with foreign capital, are now paying; and how many miles are incomplete of the Hukuang railway already referred to?

Mr. McNEILL: The Chinese Government have not up to the present time defaulted on any British railway loans to China; I cannot speak for loans made by other countries. The Hukuang -Railway Loan is secured on certain provincial revenues of the Provinces of Hupei and Hunan. The present financial position of the Chinese railways is very obscure; in many eases the receipts are being seized by the local military chiefs; so far as my information goes none of the railways are now paying their way, and it has been necessary to raise funds from other sources to meet the loan obligations. About 250 miles of the Hukuang Railway still remain to be built.

GOVERNMENT BONDS (EX-ENEMY ISSUES).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state, for the benefit of the British investor, the exact position in
respect of recognition of Chinese Government bonds issued in Germany and Austria?

Mr. McNEILL: The Chinese Government have undertaken to recognise all Chinese Government bonds of ex-enemy issue which were held by British subjects prior to the declaration of war between China and the countries concerned. In the case of the secured ex-enemy loans. payments have been duly made. In the case of certain ex-enemy loans which were issued without adequate security, no payments have been forthcoming since the War; repeated representations have been made on behalf of British holders of these bonds to the Chinese Government, who recognise the obligation but have hitherto failed to provide the necessary funds to meet it. According to the information in my possession, the Chinese Government are refusing to pay bonds of ex-enemy issues held by ex-enemy nationals at the time of China's declaration of war irrespective of the present ownership of such bonds.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH FISHERMEN (ARREST).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has as yet had any reply from the British representative at Moscow with regard to the arrest of British fishermen at Murmansk; whether he can indicate what steps the Government propose to take to secure their immediate release and the protection of British fishermen in these waters; whether he has any information as to where these men are; and whether they are safe and well cared for?

Mr. McNEILL: No report has yet been received from Moscow, and I have therefore nothing to add to the reply given on 9th April to the hon. and gallant Member for South-West Hull. The men are at Murmansk, and, according to a telegram from the master to the owners dated 3rd April, were being well treated.

Viscount CURZON: How long are we going to tolerate this state of affairs? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to maritime law, the Soviet Government has committed an act of piracy on the high seas towards British working men?

Mr. McNEILL: I am sure my Noble Friend will appreciate that it is impossible for the Government to take drastic action without knowing exactly what has taken place.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider improving his Intelligence Department?

NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN.

Commander BELLAIRS: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any results have been reached in the negotiations of M. Joffe, as representing the Soviet Government of Russia, in the negotiations with Japan?

Mr. McNEILL: The negotiations have not, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, yet led to any result.

MOSCOW (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE).

Mr. SNOWDEN: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the actual position of the British representative at Moscow; is he the medium for commercial and diplomatic communications between the British Government and the Soviet Government; and in what respect does his position differ from that of an ordinary British Minister accredited to a friendly State?

Mr. McNEILL: Mr. Hodgson is British official agent at Moscow; he is the medium for commercial and political communications with the Soviet Government, but has no regular diplomatic status; his exceptional position is governed by the Trade Agreement of 16th March, 1921.

TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. SNOWDEN: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the trading agreement with Russia is still in force; if so, what is the date of its expiration if it remains in force until six months' notice is given by one party; if such notice has been given; and what is the intention of the Government as to the future of this agreement?

Mr. McNEILL: The trade agreement is still in force. The conditions under which notice of termination may be given are contained in Article 13, to which I would refer the hon. Member. No such notice has yet been given. As regards the last part of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on
9th April to the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities.

BRITISH SHIPPING.

Mr. GILBERT: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are at present any restrictions on British shipping entering or leaving Russian ports under the control of the Soviet Government; if so, will he state generally what such restrictions are; and whether Russian vessels are allowed to enter and leave British ports on the same conditions as all other shipping?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to answer this question. Apart from some minor difficulties experienced by British vessels at, certain Russian ports, I am not aware of any restriction imposed by the Soviet Government on British shipping. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does that answer imply that the treatment meted out to British shipping by the Russian Soviet Government is not much more equitable than the treatment meted out by Portugal, which is one of our Allies?

Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman compare notes with his colleague who represents the Foreign Office with regard to British shipping in the White Sea?

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Mr. MOREL: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether due consideration will be given at the forthcoming negotiations at Lausanne to the Turkish claim against Greece for the extensive destruction of mosques, shrines, and other religious buildings in Anatolia perpetrated by the Greek Armies during the late War?

Mr. McNEILL: The Turkish claim against Greece for reparation is one of the outstanding questions which will come up for settlement at the forthcoming negotiations at Lausanne, and will no doubt receive full consideration.

ABYSSINIA (MAGI COMMISSION).

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs if he is aware that the Magi Commission was appointed in 1919 to carry out certain inquiries in Abyssinia, that this Commission was composed of three Abyssinian notables and two British subjects, and that these British subjects were nominated by the British Govern merit; can he say whether the Report of this Commission was submitted to His Majesty's Government; and whether it will be made available to Members of this House?

Mr. McNEILL: The Magi Commission consisting of representatives of His Majesty's and the Abyssinian Governments was appointed in 1918. Its chief duty was to establish the position of the frontier between Abyssinia and British territory in order that raiders from the Abyssinian side might no longer be able to plead ignorance that they were in British territory. The mission was accomplished and its Report received, but it would be misleading to publish a Report nearly four years old describing a state of affairs which has to a very large extent ceased to exist.

Mr. ROBERTS: Is it not a fact that the Report contained the statement that gangs of slaves yoked together had been seen marching through Abyssinia?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, I dare say that that is true, but as I stated in my answer we have the best reasons for hoping that this state of things has ceased to exist to a very large extent.

SCHOONER "EDDIE JAMES."

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to a piratical attack on the Yarmouth schooner "Eddie James," which occurred off the New Jersey coast on 2nd March; whether the schooner was laden with 600 cases of liquor; whether the whole of the cargo was removed and the supercargo wounded and kidnapped by the pirates; whether any inquiry has been made into the ease; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. McNEILL: No information about this incident has been received at the Foreign Office.

Mr. SIMPSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this case has been reported in the American newspapers?

Mr. McNEILL: I am perfectly aware that it has teen reported in the Press, but no information on the subject has reached the Foreign Office.

Mr. SIMPSON: Will the hon. Gentleman obtain information from the British Embassy at Washington?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND.

ARMY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about the mobilisation or partial mobilisation of the Polish army; whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of the concentrations of Polish troops on the Lithuanian and Western Russia frontiers: and if he, is aware of the objects of these concentrations?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative, and the last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL, WARSAW.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information to the effect that the Polish Government intends to demolish the Orthodox Cathedral at Warsaw; and whether representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Polish Government on the subject?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman any information that this cathedral is riot going to he demolished?

Mr. McNEILL: I know nothing on this subject at all, except that I saw in the Press the statement to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If the hon. Member finds later on that this is true, will the Government take some steps to prevent such acts of vandalism?

Mr. McNEILL: I think we shall have to wait until we know the facts before we consider what can be done.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is aware that the United States Navy Appropriation Act for the financial year 1923–24 requests the President to negotiate with the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan with a view to limiting the construction of all types of war-like aircraft, submarines, and surface vessels; whether any proposals for a Conference have yet been made; and whether His Majesty's Government welcomes the proposal of both branches of the American Parliament?

Mr. McNEILL: It does not appear that any such request to the President was included in the Act as finally passed. No proposals for such a Conference have been received. The remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.

BRITISH SHIPPING DUES (PORTUGAL).

Mr. GILBERT: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further progress has yet been made with the Portuguese Government in removing the charges which are now being made on British-owned ships entering Portuguese ports; whether he can make any statement on the subject; and if his Department will use every endeavour to get these charges altered or withdrawn as soon as possible?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government are making, and will continue to make, every endeavour to obtain more equitable treatment for British shipping entering Portuguese ports. With this object in view, they have recently submitted to the Portuguese Government proposals for the conclusion of a special commercial agreement which will secure for British shipping entering Portuguese ports the fullest benefits obtainable under Portuguese legislation. The Portuguese Government have not yet replied to these proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ROYAL MARINES (AMALGAMATION).

Viscount CURZON: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can indicate what economy would be realised by the amalgamation of the Royal Marines; on what, general terms it is proposed that it should be carried out; and what is the strength of both forces to-day?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I apologise for giving a somewhat full answer to this question.
The amalgamation, by enabling a reduction of one division to be made., will effect an economy of about 150,000 a year. The general terms of amalgamation will be as follow:
The two branches of the corps will be amalgamated under the historic title of "The Royal Marines."
The Light Infantry headquarters at Gosport. will be abolished, and the Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry at Portsmouth will he united into one division at Eastney, the surplus officers and men in equal proportions from Royal Marine Artillery, Eastney, and Royal Marine Light infantry, Gosport, being transferred voluntarily as far as possible to Chatham' arid Plymouth divisions, to equalise the numbers at each of the three home ports. Each headquarters will then draft men for the ships belonging to that. port.
The officers will be combined on to one seniority list (those entered since 11)12 were originally on such a list).
The Recruit Depot at Eastney will be closed, and all recruits trained at. the Depot, Royal Marines, Deal.
The corps will be trained for their duties afloat and as infantry soldiers, but a school of land service artillery will be maintained at Eastney to train a percentage of officers and men as specialists to meet any requirements likely to arise.
Browndown ranges and camp will also be retained.
The present strength of the Corps is:


Royal Marine Artillery
☠
2,146


Royal Marine Light. Infantry
☠
6,907


Royal Marine School of Music
☠
788

Viscount CURZON: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before the amalgamation of the Royal Marine Artillery and the Royal Marine Light Infantry is definitely decided upon, the naval staff will be consulted; whether he is aware that the proposal was rejected by the Board of Admiralty in 1919; and whether he can give an assurance that, before any action is taken and before either corps loses its identity, an opportunity will be given to the House of Commons to fully discuss the matter and make its wishes known?

Mr. AMERY: The amalgamation has been decided upon by the Board of Admiralty as a whole, on which the naval staff is represented. It is incorrect to state that the proposal was rejected in 1919. The question of amalgamation was taken up at that time mainly because of an alleged strong sentiment amongst the officers and men in favour of reversion to the original system of a single corps, but on further inquiry the Board decided that there was no such preponderance of sentiment, and postponed the consideration of the proposal indefinitely. The great reduction in, numbers which has necessitated the present decision was not. then in contemplation. As regards the last part of the question, the whole subject has received very careful consideration, and it is undesirable that there should be any delay in carrying out the change which has been decided upon.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask how it was that, when introducing the Navy Estimates the other day, the right hon. Gentleman had not one word to say about this proposed change, and, in view of that fact, will he assure us that the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing this very important change before it actually comes into effect?

Mr. AMERY: The matter had not been finally and absolutely decided at that moment. The House will, of course, have the usual opportunity in the course of the Session of discussing that matter, and, if necessary, of criticising the conduct of the Board of Admiralty with regard to it.

Viscount CURZON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that since, according to his own statement, the change will
then have been made, the House of Commons will then have no power to go back on the decision? Can we be given an opportunity to discuss the matter before the change is made? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. AMERY: The change is in process of being carried out.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state how it is proposed to retain the distinctive character of the Royal Marine Artillery in the proposed amalgamation of the two branches of the force; whether the uniform will be retained; and whether a similar course of training in land and sea gunnery will be given to the Marines taking the places of the Royal Marine Artillery as in the past?

Mr. AMERY: The uniform will in future be. the same for 'the whole corps, and in this respect regard will be paid to the traditions of both branches. In order to avoid expense, officers will, of course, be allowed to retain their present uniform for a. reasonable time. The training for all new entries will be that of infantrymen, but a proportion will subsequently be trained as specialists in Land Service Artillery.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with his assurance to the House before Easter that the traditions would be maintained? If the blue uniform of the Royal Marine Artillery is to be abolished, how are its distinctive characteristics to be maintained?

Mr. AMERY: What I said was that in the new single-corps uniform regard will be paid to the traditions of both branches.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the uniform be red or blue in the future? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yellow! "]

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the decision has been actually come to? His last answer on the subject was that it was under consideration.

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir, the decision has been come to.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot go into all the details of the uniform, as it has not yet been settled, hut both blue and red will play a part.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the proposed amalgamation of the Royal Marines will make any difference to the pensions of the men at present serving?

Mr. AMERY: It is not anticipated that amalgamation of the Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry will, in itself, entail any changes in the pensions of the men affected.

DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (EX-APPRENTICES).

Mr. FOOT: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ex-apprentices at Devonport Dockyard have now been discharged since 1st March, 1923; and for how many has alternative employment been provided?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): The number of ex-apprentices who have been discharged from Devon-port Dockyard since the 1st March is 104. I regret that it has not been possible to provide alternative employment for any of these discharged workmen.

Mr. FOOT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that an assurance was given by the First Lord of the Admiralty during the discussion that an attempt would be made to find employment for them, and do I understand that not one of the 104 has been given alternative employment?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Those attempts arc still being made.

BATTLE OF JUTLAND (HARPER REPORT).

Mr. HUGHES: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the Harper Report, in explanation of the tactics of the Battle of Jutland, which was specially prepared for the information of the public, was completed in 1919, and that this Report was approved for issue. to the public by the First Sea Lord, Lord Wester Wemyss, but on account of that
officer's pending relief was left by him for issue by his successor, Earl Beatty, he will say why this Report has not yet been published?

Mr. AMERY: The Report referred to was not approved for issue to the public by the Board of Admiralty while Lord Wester Wemyss was First Sea Lord, but was only completed some months after he had left the Board. By the time it was completed further information had become accessible which necessitated revision of the material. In accordance with a promise previously given, the new staff narrative and diagrams were submitted to Lord Jellicoe, whose very full comments are now being considered. I hope it may be possible to publish the complete staff narrative of the Battle of Jutland with the diagrams in a few months.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

BRITISH TRADE.

Mr. GILBERT: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German custom house at Emmerich, on the Rhine, is now in charge of either the French or the Belgians; whether British-owned goods either entering or leaving Germany by the Rhine, and having to pass this frontier custom house, have to pay duties to the German authorities, and, in addition, duties to the French and Belgian authorities; and if he will state what action his Department has taken in order to protect the rights of British nationals trading with Germany at the present time?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have been asked to reply. The Custom House at Emmerich is in charge of the Franco-Belgian authorities. Goods imported into the occupied territory by way of the Rhine pay import duty to the Franco-Belgian authorities only, at Emmerich or other Rhine port, in accordance with the Regulations issued by the Franco-Belgian authorities. All goods exported from the occupied territory by the Rhine are subject to export duty, unless they are free of export licence requirement, and such export duty has to be paid only to the Franco-Belgian authorities on the issue
of the export licence. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement by the President. of the Board of Trade in this House on the 28th March.

Captain BENN: Did not the President of the Board of Trade state that, owing to the condition of affairs in the occupied territory, trade had vanished?

BRITISH POLICY.

Mr. BECKER: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if, as a consequence of conversations recently exchanged with M. Loucheur, His Majesty's Government. contemplates abandoning its present policy of friendly neutrality towards France and of assuming a policy of giving her absolute support of her action against Germany on the Ruhr?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: (replying fur the Prime Minister)
The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of ex-service officers and men trained for administrative posts by the Ministry of Labour who are still unemployed: whether he is aware that persons with pensions amounting up to £1,000 a year for service in other Departments are being employed in administrative posts in Government offices with salaries up to £1,000 per year; and whether he will consider what steps his Ministry can take to have all such persons substituted by trained ex-service officers or men?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): No ex-service officers and men have been trained by the Ministry of Labour specifically for administrative posts in the Civil Service. As regards the second part of the question, there are no such officers employed in the Ministry of Labour, but, if the hon. Member is referring to certain retired senior officers of His Majesty's Forces at present. employed in administrative posts in the Ministry of Pensions, I would refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to the
hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) on the 6th December last.

Mr. LANSBURY: As the Minister responsible for dealing with unemployment, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Pensions has discharged one regional officer, and has kept in employment two regional officers who have each a pension of £1,000 a year, and who are drawing respectively £900 and £1,000 a year as salary; and does he think that that is a proper way of carrying on public business?

Sir M. BARLOW: I really do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's statements are correct, but I would suggest that the proper way for him to raise the issue is to ask a question of the Minister of Pensions.

Mr. LANSBURY: But you are responsible for dealing with unemployment. Is it fair that these men—[interruption]—should draw these salaries and pensions also?

Captain MARTIN: May I ask whether—

Mr. SPEAKER: called upon Mr. Trevelyan Thomson to put the next question.

KING'S ROLL.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now give the House the names of the local authorities who are not on the King's Roll; the date when the Roll was first established; and the number of appeals which have since been issued to local authorities on the matter'?

Sir M. BARLOW: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 98th March, to which I have nothing to add. The King's National Roll was established in September, 1919. During the last 311 years several appeals have been made to the local authorities; and the King's Roll National Council is now making a very special effort along the same lines.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think, having regard to the fact that it is 3½ years since this Roll was brought into force, that, it is desirable
that the inhabitants of these local authorities should know of the actions of their councils, so that those interested in the affairs of ex-service men should make a change in their personnel?

Sir M. BARLOW: The hon. Gentleman quite well knows the position. The King's Roll National Council has been set up. It is taking this matter into its most serious consideration. It has decided that it will make this further attempt along voluntary lines, and with that decision I must say I concur.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Would it not be the best and most direct appeal, and likely to have good results, if a black list. of corporations not on the King's Roll were published?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour how many insured persons will be unable to draw unemployment benefit on account of the gap period on 12th April?

Sir M. BARLOW: On 12th April, when the new 'Unemployment Insurance Act comes into operation, the only persons affected by the gap of a fortnight imposed by that Act will be those who have drawn precisely 22 weeks of benefit. since 2nd November last,. I have no material which would enable me to form anything like a proper estimate of that number, but I think it is not likely to le a large proportion of those unemployed.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some estimate of what the number is likely to be of those people who will be thrown on the local rates?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have endeavoured to get some estimate with a view to answering this question, and it has been impossible to get anything like a satisfactory figure. If the hon. Member will put himself in communication with me I will endeavour to explain to him the position as I understand it.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gap arrangement in the Unemployment Insurance Acts costs the West Ham Board of Guardians £9,000 a week?

Mr. WEBB: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the commencement on 12th April of a further period of uncovenanted unemployment benefit, he will state when he will be able to communicate to the House the conditions under which this benefit will be granted, and which he undertook very carefully to reconsider?

Sir M. BARLOW: In accordance with my undertaking I am examining these conditions very carefully, but, as the hon. Member will appreciate, the matter is one of considerable complication and difficulty, and I am not yet in a position to make any announcement.

Mr. DAVISON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in many eases payment of unemployment benefit is stopped without notice; that on applying in the usual way for his weekly benefit a man is informed that there is no benefit for him, and he can get no information when he may expect to receive any further benefit; and whether, in view of the hardship caused by the withdrawal of benefit without. notice, he will issue an instruction that, as far as possible, notice shall be given, so that unemployed men may be in a position to apply to the guardians for relief before their families are reduced absolutely to destitution and hunger?

Sir M. BARLOW: The instructions already provide. that notice shall be given to the applicant of the approaching exhaustion of benefit, or of its suspension during a "gap." In certain cases, particularly when fraud is suspected, stoppage or suspension without notice is unavoidable. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases in which notice was not given when it was reasonably possible to give it, I shall be glad to inquire into them.

BENEFIT PAYMENTS (BALFRON, STIKLINGSHIRE).

Mr. THOMAS JOHNSTON: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the dissatisfaction resulting from delay in the payment of unemployment benefit in the village of Balfron, Stirlingshire; is he aware that cases 'referred by the local Once at. Alexandria for ruling to the divisional office in Edinburgh take several weeks for decision; and will he take steps to have the payments of unemployment benefit made in Balfron without irritating and unnecessary delays?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am having immediate inquiries made into this matter and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether the statement of the Secretary for Scotland, in connection with the proceedings of the Convention of Royal Burghs in Edinburgh on 3rd April, to the effect that relief for Scottish parish councils in the assistance of the able-bodied unemployed might be found in enlargement of administrative areas, is to be regarded as Government policy in this matter; whether any inquiry in such a direction has been made by the Scottish Office and, if so, with what result; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to give effect to such a proposal?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under - Secretary for Health, Scotland): The terms of the passage to which the hon. Member refers make it quite clear that the suggestion as to enlargement of administrative areas was put forward for consideration by the authorities concerned, and not as a statement of Government policy. No special inquiry has been made into the subject, and it is not at present proposed to introduce legislation to give effect to the proposal.

Mr. GRAHAM: In view of the fact that the larger area will have the effect of distributing the burden more evenly over Scotland, is it not the duty of the Scottish Office at least to make inquiry?

Captain ELLIOT: Though no special inquiry has been made, we are considering the matter generally, but, as the hon. Member knows, there is considerable difficulty, especially in the case of smaller authorities, who fear that they would lose their independence under this proposal.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Before any inquiry is made, will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the experience of the Scottish authorities as to the Scottish Education Act of 1918, whereby increased administrative expenses have been caused?

Captain ELLIOT: Considerations of that kind make the Department very chary of the suggested new amalgamation.

EMIGRATION (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. NEWBOLD: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will issue instructions to the managers of the Employment Exchanges to call the attention of all persons unemployed and contemplating emigration to the existence of widespread unemployment in New South Wales and other States of the Australian Commonwealth?

Sir M. BARLOW: A general notice such as the hon. Member suggests would, I think, be misleading, as there are undoubtedly many openings for suitable settlers on the land in Australia, and also for women prepared to undertake domestic work. By arrangement with the Australian authorities, employment in Australia is assured for all applicants selected through the agency of the Employment Exchanges. This is, I think, the most satisfactory form of precaution that can be taken.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are fully 20,000 unemployed at Sydney at present who cannot possibly get jobs?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is it not a fact that there is no unemployment in the agricultural industry'?

Sir M. BARLOW: I think the second supplementary question largely answers the first.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It was put on purpose for that.

Sir M. BARLOW: The problems of employment in the towns and in the country are entirely different..

Dr. CHAPPLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt that the Government of New South Wales are acquainted with the extent of unemployment, and are they not encouraging emigration from this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WOMEN EMPLOYÉS, KEW.

Mr. MIDDLETON: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many of the women employés at Kew now having their cases investigated by officers of his Department. have already been cross-examined as to their most
intimate private affairs once, or more than once, in the course of their employment with the Ministry of Labour; that those transferred from other Departments because they were efficient workers maintaining others, had previously had their affairs investigated by substitution hoards, including ex-service men in those Departments; and whether he will undertake that the present cross-examination shall be the last imposed in cases other than those in which improvement of circumstances is likely to occur in future?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am aware that a similar inquiry has taken place previously, but it will be realised that personal circumstances frequently change materially in a comparatively short space of The present inquiry is being made with the view to ensuring that only women who earn their own living, or have others dependent on them, are retained on the temporary staff. Although a further detailed inquiry will probably not be necessary, I consider that, in pursuance of the general policy of the Government in this matter, the circumstances of the officers concerned should be kept under scrutiny from time to time.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Colonel NEWMAN: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the total number of Ministers, secretaries, advisers, and other officials with a salary,' excluding bonus, of £1,000 per annum and upwards which he proposes to ask the House shall be borne on the Estimates of his Department for the current financial year; and can the reconsideration of these posts on vacancies be held to mean that in the majority of cases they will not be filled up?

Sir M. BARLOW: The number of officials (including Ministers, and including both headquarter and provincial officers) borne on the Vote for the Ministry of Labour, who are in receipt of salaries, excluding bonus, of £21,000 per annum and upwards is 36. Of this number, three are loaned to other Departments. As regards vacancies, it is the settled practice to consider in each case whether a particular post need be filled. The number of posts must, of course, depend upon the volume and responsibility of the work which the Ministry is called upon to perform.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of those who are getting this salary, including bonus?

Sir M. BARLOW: If the hon. Member. will put a question down I will endeavour to answer it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTONGRIFFITHS: Are these three who are loaned to other Departments on the charge of the Ministry of Labour?

Sir M. BARLOW: Yes.

Colonel NEWMAN: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee and to the urgent need of public economy, he is satisfied that a reduction in the Estimates of his Department of less than £2,000,000 on a total expenditure for last year of £18,000,000 is the utmost possible?

Sir M. BARLOW: In framing the Estimates the whole expenditure of the Ministry was most carefully reviewed in the interests of economy, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that every effort has been made, to secure all possible reductions.

Mr. TURNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large amount of public money is being wasted at present in connection with the labour dispute in Norfolk by the transference of policemen from York to.Norfolk, where they are not needed?

KING'S PROCTOR'S DEPARTMENT.

Mr. RAWLINSON: 62.
asked the Attorney-General what is the total number of the staff employed in the King's Proctor's Department.; and what the total amount of the salaries and allowances of the Department come to?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The total number of the staff employed in the King's Proctor's Department (inclusive of the Procurator-General) is 13, and the total amount of the salaries and allowances (including bonus) is £4,983. The Procurator-General receives no salary as such, but is paid a salary as Treasury Solicitor.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the statement in the Press to the effect that over £102,000 a year is charged for
this Department, and that the staff numbers over 200? As I gather from his reply that statement is without foundation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did observe in the papers the statement referred to, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly surmises from my answer, the statement is without. foundation and must have been based on some very gross mistake.

Mr. PRINGLE: Would the large sum mentioned in the Press not include the fees of counsel?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. It is an enormous list of salaries which have no existence.

Mr. PRINGLE: What are the fees of counsel?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

EMPTY HOUSES (RATING AND TAXATION).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if he will favourably consider taking powers in his new Housing Bill whereby empty dwelling-houses may be both rated and taxed so long as they are withheld from occupation?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have carefully considered this suggestion, but. I cannot undertake to introduce legislation for the purpose in view.

Mr. THOMSON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest some other means whereby use may be made of unoccupied houses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall have a proposal to make in the course of this Session with a view to making use of them.

PARLOUR HOUSES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the comparatively small difference in cost between the parlour and non-parlour house, he will reconsider his decision to exclude the former from subsidy and so give local authorities greater freedom in meeting their own needs?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. As I have previously explained the policy of the Government is to give the subsidy only for the small type of house, which has not been built in any considerable numbers in the last few years, and which is the least attractive proposition to private enterprise.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the parlour house is being built in any considerable quantity at the present time?

Mr. HOUFTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling of great indignation throughout the country, that the country is going to be covered by houses absolutely unfit for human beings to live in?

Mr. J. JONES: How does the right hon. Gentleman think that working men who are trying to do their best for their children in the matter of education are going to provide them with rooms to sit in if they are to be denied the use of parlours?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It must be remembered that the people we hope to accommodate in this type of house are now living in one or two rooms. There is a considerable misapprehension if it 'is supposed that we are going to cover the country with houses unfit. for human beings to live in.

BUILDING LAND (PRICES).

Mr. McLAREN: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if the terms of reference of the Committee he is setting up to report on the prices of building materials will include the prices demanded for land; and, if so, will be give instructions to the Committee to ascertain what the rateable valve of the land was before purchase?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The position as regards the acquisition of land by local authorities is, in my opinion, already adequately safeguarded.

Mr. McLAREN: In view of the fact that during the Dr. Addison housing schemes there was a distinct attempt to exact enormous prices for land for building, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary that this Committee should make a full report as to the price asked for land?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not know what prices may have been demanded for the land under the Addison schemes, but extortionate prices were not in fact obtained.

RATE EXEMPTION.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 43.
asked the Minister -of Health if he is aware that since the tax-exemption ordinance was passed in New York on 27th September, 1920, an official report states that the following progress has been made in house-building there; in 1920, houses planned 5,675, tenements planned 62, families provided for 8,588; in 1921, houses planned 14,780, tenements planned 824, families provided for 33,588; and in 1922, families provided for 114,330; and if he will endeavour to obtain through official channels a Report which will enable the House to consider the advisability or not- of introducing similar legislation in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already obtained information about the American experience, and I propane to deal with this question of rate exemption when moving the Second Reading of the Housing Bill.

INCREASED RENTS (SERVICE).

Mr. PRINGLE: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain landlords in West London who have recently acquired large blocks of flats on the assumption that the Rents Restriction Act would be allowed to lapse, are endeavouring to obtain increases of rent on the ground that certain minor services hitherto rendered by charwomen, porters, etc., constitute service; and whether, in view of this fact, he will deal with the matter in the forthcoming Rents Bill in order that the tenants of these premises may be protected?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the practice to which the hon. Member refers and. I am considering whether the matter can be dealt with by means of some clearer definition of what constitutes attendance for the purposes of the Act or otherwise.

CONDEMNED HOUSES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. STEPHEN: 60.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses in Scotland which have been condemned by a
medical officer of health as unfit for human habitation, but which were occupied on 31st March, and the number of such in Glasgow?

Captain ELLIOT: I am not in a position without calling for special returns from all local authorities to give complete and accurate figures, but according to the details furnished by the local authorities when submitting schemes in terms of Section 1 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, the new houses which the local authorities in Scotland considered necessary to meet the needs of their districts included 22,296 houses to replace houses then occupied which should be closed and demolished, and 13,932 houses to re-house persons who would be dispossessed by improvement and reconstruction schemes under Parts I and II of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. I may add that from returns received by the Scottish Board of Health from local authorities in Scotland of proceedings under the Housing Acts during the year 1922 it would appear that 7,280 houses were during that year reported as unfit for habitation. In 970 of these the defects were remedied, while Closing Orders were made in the case of 60 houses, the defects in 27 of which were subsequently remedied. In Glasgow I understand that the medical officer of health has reported that 13,195 houses at present occupied are not reasonably fit for habitation.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Arc all public authorities in Scotland included in that?

Captain ELLIOT: No. That is why I am unable to give the exact figures as requested by the hon. Member.

LOCAL RATES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether the Secretary for Scotland leas received a request from the National Federation of Property Owners in Scotland urging that the portion of the subsidy for new houses falling on local rates in. Scotland should be imposed only on tenants and not on proprietors; whether any reply has been sent.; and whether, before such a proposal is entertained, Scottish Members of Parliament will be consulted?

Captain ELLIOT: The answer to the first part. of the question is in the affirma-
tive, and to the second part in the negative. As regards the last part, a proposal of the nature referred to could only be given effect to by legislation.

IMPORTED MEAT (CHEMICAL TREATMENT).

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether meat is imported into this country after being treated with formaldehyde or sulphurdioxide by chemical process; what amount of meat so treated was imported in 1922; and from what countries it was imported?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I am aware, no meat treated by either of these processes has recently been imported into this country.

Mr. SIMPSON: Are there any regulations to prevent. meat of this type being imported into this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of the question.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (PANEL DOCTORS).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he contemplates any alteration in the terms of payment to doctors on the panel lists; and whether he proposes to consult with representatives of the approved societies on the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Before the expiry of the present agreement at the end of this year, both the terms of service and the remuneration of insurance practitioners will have to be reconsidered. In reply to the second part of the question, the Insurance Consultative Council have already been consulted in regard to the terms of service, and will be consulted also as to the rate of remuneration. There is no other body representative of all the approved societies, but I shall be prepared to receive representations from the principal groups before coming to a final decision.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representatives of the
medical profession have declined to meet representatives of approved societies to discuss this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Does the right. hon. Gentleman think that this Council represents the approved societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is an elected body.

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consult the Insurance Committees in the country who are representative of all sections?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of the question.

Sir K. WOOD: 57.
asked the Minister of Health the number of doctors on the panel list, and the approximate annual amount they receive for their services; and whether there is any limitation of the number of insured persons who may be on an individual panel list?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total number of insurance practitioners in England and Wales according to the latest return is 12,588. The total payments to them in 1922 amounted to approximately £6,750,000. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale on the 14th March.

EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will take advantage of the presence of the three West African Governors now in this country to prepare with them a joint scheme to submit to the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Prime Minister has asked me to take this question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies proposes to consider, in consultation with the Governors in question, what matters connected with British West Africa can usefully be discussed at the Imperial Economic Conference, and, among other subjects, possible schemes of railway extension in their Colonies.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will my hon. Friend sec whether the Governors of other Crown Colonies could not also be summoned for the Conference, especially in view of the information that was given to the House last night that no delay need arise in Crown Colony development?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Governor of Kenya is coming, and the Colonial Secretary of Tanganyika also. This summer a number of important officials of Crown Colonies will be here, with whom we can discuss the matter. I do not think it is practicable to summon all the Governors to come home for this special purpose.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is there any need to wait until the Conference before these schemes are put into operation?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not in all cases. In some eases they can go on at once.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 46 and 81.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is in a position to state what steps His Majesty's Government have decided to adopt in relation to this country's cooperation and assistance in the development of approved schemes within the Empire, with a view to opening up further tracts of suitable country for settlers, as also assisting towards the trade prosperity in this country;
2) when he will be in a position to inform the House of the extent of the financial support which the British Government are extending towards the Oversea Settlement Committee work and migration generally, and also the financial co-operation with the Dominion Governments for the opening up of undeveloped country?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): advanced to the table to answer the Question.

Mr. J. JONES: Hold out your hand, naughty boy. [Laughter.]

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am unable. at present to add anything to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: In view of the statement made in the House yesterday, that no delay need take place
in many of these development schemes, will my hon. Friend promise the House that he will impress the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to delay any decision connected with any development?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

IMPERIAL EXPENDITURE.

Colonel NEWMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister why, in the Estimates for the present financial year, Ireland, for purposes of Imperial expenditure, has been treated as one country, whereas the island is now divided into two parts with Governments independent of each other and in different relations to this country; and is he aware of the difficulty which this method of presenting British expenditure in Ireland occasions?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the Estimates he will find that separate Votes on sections of Votes are given for services in Northern Ireland or the Free State in five cases. The other Irish services are remanet services which cannot conveniently Or consistently with proper accounting be shown in two sections. I am not aware of any difficulty arising from the method of presentment.

Colonel NEWMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Ministry of Labour Estimate he will see that there is a very great difference.

EARL DERBY'S VISIT TO ULSTER.

Mr. PRINGLE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether any statement, will be made in the House with reference to the official visit of the Secretary of State for War to Northern Ireland; and whether, in view of the re-establishment of law and order in Northern Ireland, any communications passed between the Secretary of State and the Northern Government as to the 200 internees at Larne who have presented their Cases before that Government's Advisory Committee and, in particular, as to the junior Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh in this House, who has been interned since 23rd May, 1922?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I have been asked to reply. My Noble Friend's visit was official only in so far as it concerned the inspection of regular troops. With regard to the second part of the question. he informs me that no
communication whatever on the subject passed between him and the Northern Government.

ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS, UNITED STATES.

Mr. AMMON: 48.
asked the Prime. Minister whether his attention has been called to the illicit importation of alcoholic liquors into the United States of America by ships flying the British flag; and whether steps will be taken to prevent such action against the law of a friendly Power?

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether any representations have been made by the Government of the United States as to the extensive smuggling of spirituous liquor from Nassau, Bahamas, and other West Indian ports into the United States, and that the facilities afforded to smugglers in those ports render the enforcement of the prohibition laws in the United States increasingly difficult; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to prevent owners of British shipping abetting breaches of the law of a friendly State?

Mr. McNEILL: Representations have been made by the United States Government with regard to the export of liquor from West Indian ports, which appears subsequently to be introduced into the United States by small craft. putting off from the United States coast and manned by United States citizens. Ti is very difficult for His Majesty's Government to interfere with the legitimate export of any article from British territory, especially as action by His Majesty's Government. alone would merely drive the trade into other channels. His Majesty's Government would, however, deplore any complicity of British subjects in infringements of the law of the United States, and I am considering, in consultation with the other Departments concerned, whether any action can be taken in the sense desired by the United States Government..

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that vessels are leaving United Kingdom ports manned by British seamen who are, handed revolvers at the commencement- of the voyage and are offered fairly high wages as an inducement to undertake what. is regarded as a risk in conveying liquor from these shores to American ports?

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the rising indignation in America on this subject, and whether he is aware of the address by Mr. W. J. Bryan on the question?

Mr. McNEILL: I am aware of the indignation, and I think the answer I have read shows that His Majesty's Government appreciate it and are trying to take action accordingly. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) I have no information to that effect.

Mr. SHINWELL: If information is furnished to him, will the hon. Member take action in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. Member will furnish me with information, I will certainly consider what action is necessary in consequence.

GERMAN.REPARATION PROPOSALS.

Mr. SNOWDEN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if, on the 31st of December last, in view of the early meeting of the Allied Conference in Paris, the German Government officially informed the Allied Governments that the German State Secretary was commissioned to lay before the Paris Conference the German reparation proposals and to explain them verbally; whether the German State Secretary was in Paris during the meeting of the Allied Conference: whether he was invited to submit the proposals he was commissioned by his Government to put forward, and, if not, why and did he himself make any suggestion to the other Ministers at the Conference that Dr. Bergemann should be invited to submit the proposals either verbally or in writing?

Mr. BALDWIN: (for the Prime Minister)
The hon. Member will find on page 68 of Command Paper 1812 a statement as to the German overture before the Paris Conference, the action taken by the Conference thereon awl the reasons for that action. There is nothing I can add to that statement.

MID-SCOTLAND SHIP CANAL.

Mr. MOREL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the evidence brought before the Royal Commission on Inland Waterways in connection with the Mid-Scotland Ship Canal and the
numerous memoranda which have been exchanged between the Mid-Scotland Ship Canal National Association and various Government Departments during the last few years,, and the present condition of unemployment in Scotland, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to make an exhaustive examination of the scheme from the point of view of the national advantages which the construction of this canal might offer from the commercial and strategic point of view, as well as from the question of absorbing considerable section of the unemployed workers of Scotland now in receipt of Government maintenance from which no national return is received; and whether he will receive a deputation on the subject?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 26th, 27th and 28th March by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to questions on this subject by the hon. Members for Barnstaple and Linlithgow. The Government would not be prepared to consider this scheme except as a commercial undertaking. No evidence has yet been adduced to show that the canal would be likely to pay its way, and my right hon. Friend does not think that in the circumstances any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Committee of the nature suggested or by his receiving a deputation on the subject.

Mr. PETO: Are we to understand that the Government. are prepared to consider this Question merely from the commercial point of view, without any regard to its other advantages?

Dr. CHAPPLE: Are the Government prepared to make inquiry as to what the result would probably be from the commercial point of view?

GERMAN FISH (BRITISH PORTS).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he will bring in a Bill to prohibit. German boats from dumping fish on English ports and markets?

Mr. BALDWIN: The proposal of my hon. Friend is a large one, and I am informed that it would not have the support even of all branches of the fishing industry.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Will the Government bring in any Measure or put forward any proposal to protect the fishermen?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is very difficult to deal with the fishing industry apart from other industries.

Mr. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the principle embodied in the question should not be applied to the dumping of British newspapers in Germany and other continental countries?

HOUSING BILL.

Sir K. WOOD: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the inconvenience that may arise if the Housing Bill is circulated on the same day as the introduction of the Budget, he will endeavour to cause the same to be available to Members not later than the 13th instant?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the Bill will be in the hands of Members by to-morrow at the latest.

Sir K. WOOD: Have the events of last night any bearing on the date specified by-the Prime Minister for the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will copies of the Bill be distributed to the private meeting which is to be held upstairs to-morrow?

Mr. T. THOMSON: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Health whether it was correctly reported in the public Press that lie is to address a private meeting of the Conservative Members of the House in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs, in order to make a full statement on the Government's new housing policy, and in view of his repeated refusals to give this House further information as to what the Bill will contain, does he not consider that such a statement should be made on the Floor of the House, as members of all parties are equally interested in this vital social problem?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the text of the Bill will be in the hands of all hon. Members by to-morrow morning at the latest, everyone in the House will have
an equal opportunity of seeing what is the Government proposal. I know of no reason why a member of the Government should not discuss matters of policy with members of his own party when and where he likes.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the Bill be in the hands of all Members of the House before the private meeting is held?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I have said so.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it has not been the unbroken tradition of Parliamentary life for at least 30 or 40 years that no Minister has ever anticipated the presentation of a proposal by the Government to the House of Commons, which should be the first body to hear it, and whether it is not the case that in the lives and careers of Mr. Gladstone and other great Prime Ministers that rule has been most rigidly observed?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that the Secretary for Scotland went to Edinburgh the other day and disclosed the housing proposals for Scotland, while we Scottish Members had not an opportunity of hearing them?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no knowledge as to the second supplementary question. As to the first supplementary question, I am of opinion that if my hon. Friend's statement is correct the precedent is a bad one, and that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is a good one.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Is my right hon. Friend serious in stating that the precedent is a bad one which safeguards the fundamental right of the representatives of the people to have brought before them, before anyone else, any Measure that the Government intend to introduce, and is there any precedent in Parliamentary history of such a transaction as that which is contemplated by the Minister of Health to-morrow?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think my hon. Friend is, if I may say so, stressing the wrong point. There is no question—as was explained by the Minister of Health —of anticipation. I cannot see, whether there is a precedent or not, that there is
anything wrong in the Members of any party desiring to consult with a Minister in regard to a matter of this kind.

Mr. HARRIS: Will hon. Members on this side of the House be present?

Mr. PRINGLE: Is this a new departure intended to avert untoward incidents like that which occurred last night?

PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT, 1920.

Mr. WARNE: 58.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons who received increased pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, and the total amount paid in increased pensions. giving the maximum and minimum rates of pension so paid, for the years ending March 1921, 1922, and 1923, separately?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that this information is not available.

ASSIZES.

Mr. FOOT: 61.
asked the Attorney-General which of the recommendations of the Committee on Assizes he proposes to adopt, and when the House will be given the opportunity of discussing the suggested changes?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The recommendations to be adopted will be embodied in a Bill which it is hoped to introduce at an early date. I cannot make any announcement until then.

CROWN FISHINGS, ALNESS.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a representative body of ratepayers in Alness have for years desired to have the right at a fair rent to enjoy-the Crown fishings on the Alness river; and whether he is now in a, position to state whether their request can be granted?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Commissioner of Woods, in whose charge these fishings are, informs me, however, that they are at present held under a lease, which does not- expire until
1928, and he is, therefore, not in a position to enter into negotiations for a new letting to the body mentioned in, the question.

AGRICULTURE (DRAINAGE SCHEMES).

Mr. TURTON: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, owing to the unfavourable weather of last year, certain drainage schemes which had been sanctioned were unable to be completed; and whether he is prepared to extend the time for completing such schemes until the 15th June?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am aware that a number of schemes have been delayed by unfavourable weather, and I propose early in May to ascertain the state of progress of all schemes. If it is then evident that a number of schemes cannot be completed by 31st May, I will seek the necessary authority for such slight extension of time as may he required in individual cases.

Mr. TURTON: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a large amount of agricultural labour has failed to be absorbed on the land; and whether, to assist such unemployment, he is prepared to continue to aid schemes for land drainage and water supply throughout the year?

Sir R. SANDERS: I propose to recommend a resumption in the early autumn of schemes for the relief of rural unemployment, but during the summer months there is usually little or no unemployment among agricultural workers, and it would be undesirable to set on foot schemes which might endanger the supply of labour required during the harvest months.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, EAST GRINSTEAD.

Captain A. EVANS: 69.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by the inefficient service rendered by the East Grinstead telephone exchange; if he is aware that when a subscriber is making inquiries of the supervisor or dictating a telegram for transmission the person concerned at the telephone exchange invariably leaves the instrument every few moments, ostensibly to answer other calls,
and on protesting the subscriber is informed that they are busy; and will he take steps to have this exchange furnish a complete and efficient service to the subscribers?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am having inquiries made in regard to the service given at the East, Grinstead telephone exchange, and will acquaint the hon. and gallant Member with the result.

WIRELESS STATION, DEVIZES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 70.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the great inconvenience which is caused to passengers on trans-Atlantic vessels owing to the unsatisfactory service from the Post Office wireless station at Devizes; that owing to the frequent difficulty in securing communication with this station a very considerable proportion of messages sent to this country from ships in the Atlantic have to be transmitted from the vessel to America, and thence forwarded direct to this country either by cable or wireless, involving considerable increase in the cost of the message; that vessels like the "Majestic," which are provided with high-speed apparatus for transmission and reception, find it almost impossible to work with Devizes, which is only capable of working at hand speed; and what steps he proposes to tale in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware that there is some difficulty in receiving messages at the Devizes wireless station from the Western Atlantic owing to interference. To meet these difficulties a new receiving station is being provided in the neighbourhood of Weston-super-Mare, and on its completion I anticipate that these difficulties will disappear. At the same time high-speed apparatus is being installed.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this apparatus is likely to be completed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot say at the moment. We are pressing on with it.

SORTERS (PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. NEWBOLD: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General whether during this period of pronounced industrial depression, and
consequent unemployment, he will give instructions to terminate the custom of engaging as sorters on part-time men employed during the day, so setting to private employers the example of taking into their service for part-time only men not otherwise employed during the day?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The practice of engaging for part-time sorting work in the Post Office men in full employment during the day has been discontinued for some time past, and will certainly not lee revived during the present industrial depression.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ROYAL ARTILLERY (DRIVER ELLICOCK).

Captain A. EVANS: 72.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the widow of Driver Ellicock, S., No. 186,523, late of the Royal Field Artillery, who died on the 19th May, 1921, has not yet received a copy of the accounts of the late soldier, together with the credit balance due to her, and that the War Office have informed her that the delay is due to some inquiries being made in India; and, in view of the necessitous condition of this widow, will he have the matter settled forthwith, seeing that she has been kept waiting nearly three. Years?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): I regret the delay in this case, but Mrs. Ellicock was informed on 25th November last that the payments made to the late Driver Ellicock on his account exceeded the amount due to him, and, therefore, there was no amount clue to his estate from Army funds.

GRAND HOTEL, BASLOW (COMPENSATION CLAIM).

Mr. C. WHITE: 73.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the claim of Mr. R. H. Mabbott in respect of compensation for the use by the military during the War of the Grand Hotel and Hydro, Baslow, has been further considered; whether he is aware that Mr. Mabbott was practically ruined owing to the occupation of his hotel by the troops; and whether he will facilitate a decision being arrived at in the case?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: This case has now been investigated, and the report thereon is being sent to the War Compensation Court and to Mr. Mabbott, who is at liberty to apply for an early hearing. My information, however, does not confirm the suggestion that Mr. Mabbott was ruined through the use made of his hotel by the troops, and I regret that. the Department is not in a position to recommend the grant of compensation.

Mr. WHITE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Mr. Mabbott is in the union and that his ruin is largely the result of this occupation?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I can only say that in his bankruptcy proceedings Mr. Mabbott made no mention of having been ruined by the occupation of the troops. I do not think it is desirable to prejudge the issue by any further statement now.

Mr. WHITE: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman facilitate a decision in this case, which has been going on for twelve months?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I have said that it is now open to Mr. Mabbott to go to the War Compensation Court, and he has been informed accordingly.

ENEMY AIR RAIDS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. PONSONBY: 74.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of Mr. W. Shakespeare, of Princess Street, Sheffield, who has claimed compensation for the death of his wife and the destruction of his house in an air raid in September, 1916, he will say whether this claim has yet been examined, and for what reason no compensation has yet, been received?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the latter part of the question, under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles no compensation is payable in cases of death where dependency did not exist. The Royal Commission has not yet rendered its Report in regard to property claims.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 75.
asked the President of the Hoard of Trade when the Reparation Claims Department will deal with claims in respect of damage sustained on land through enemy air raids in 1915?

Viscount WOLMER: Claims in respect of death and injury to persons arc covered by the recent Report of the Royal Commission and payment. is now being made, and will shortly be completed. Property claims are now under consideration of the Royal Commission, but owing to their number and complexity some little time must elapse before their Report can be published.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What does "some little time "mean, as it has already taken eight years?

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that it has taken the Royal Commission eight years. The Royal Commission was appointed little more than a year ago.

KINGSTON (SURREY) BY-PASS ROAD.

Mr. PENNY: 76.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport what. progress is being made with the construction of the Kingston (Surrey) by-pass road; and whether every effort will be made to expedite the completion of the scheme, in view of the growing volume of motor traffic passing along the main thoroughfares of Kingston, causing dangerous congestion, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The surveys, plans, specifications, etc., are now completed and advertisements have been published inviting tenders for the, execution of the work. I am well aware of the desirability of relieving the congestion of traffic in Kingston, and as soon as tenders have been submitted, and an estimate can be formed of the probable cost, immediate consideration will be given to the advisability of proceeding with the construction of the by-pass.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the employment of
the London unemployed in constructing this road?

Colonel ASHLEY: That will depend largely on the London County Council.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wish to ask a question of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with regard to the Orders of the Day.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point. of Order. I wish to ask whether it is not a rule of this House Iliac, a question on the Orders of the Day cannot be put without notice, unless it be on a question of Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: This question is with regard to the arrangement of business, and is one which may be properly put now.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a further point of Order, with regard to that question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not traditional, with regard to questions arising out of the Orders of the Day at. this time, that the right of submitting such questions is the prerogative of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. SPEAKER: This question, as I understand, does not in the least anticipate certain other questions which the Leader of the Opposition is going to ask.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We do not want the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to jump our claim. We have had some of him.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House will recognise that I should first call on the Leader of the Opposition with regard to ordinary questions of this kind, but that does not disable any other hon. Member from putting such questions, and I think the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) has himself asked questions regarding the business of the day.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only wish to ask a question with regard to the discussion on agriculture, which was to take place to-day. I ask my right hon. Friend whether, having regard to the changed conditions and to the fact. that he has a very important Motion down on the Paper which may take some time,
and also having regard to the extreme importance of having a full Debate upon the agricultural proposals, the Government propose, in the circumstances, to proceed with the Debate to-day, or whether they cannot see their way to give an early day to the discussion on agriculture?

Mr. PRETYMAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him whether he is aware of the extreme urgency of an immediate statement of the Government's intention, and whether that is not even more important than that the Debate should be prolonged to a late hour in the morning?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend would be only too pleased to comply with the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) if it were possible, but the difficulty is this. This Debate on the Agriculture question has been awaited with great interest and anticipation for some time past. If it were postponed it is impossible now to say how soon we could give a day for it. There is no possibility of a day in the near future, and having regard to the critical position of agriculture—[HON. MEMBERS: "And of the Government! "]—in certain parts of the country, it is most desirable that, at all events, the Minister of Agriculture should he able to make his statement on behalf of the Government to-night. I hope, indeed, it may be possible to give considerable time to the discussion, and we must all regret that, owing to the circumstances which exist, the time must be curtailed.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government do not contemplate bringing the discussion to an end, and that they merely mean that an opportunity will be afforded to the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement to-day and that the Government will consider the question of affording further time for discussion?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that is a perfectly fair request, and we shall be quite ready to accede to it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has given
me notice of certain points of Order, and I understand it would be most convenient to take those when the first Order of the Day is called.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I wish to put two questions regarding the business of to-day and to-morrow. First, I think it is usual after an incident like that of last night that the Government should make a statement before proceeding with further business. How is that proposed to be done to-day? Secondly, what is the business proposed for to-morrow?

Mr. BALDWIN: In answer to the first part of the question, I propose to say a few words, and a few words only, on the Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister. In answer to the second part of the question, the business will be a continuation of the business of yesterday, namely, to move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates and proceed with the, Votes which were put down for yesterday, and, after 11 o'clock, to take the Army (Annual) Bill, Committee stage.

Mr. MacDONALD: With reference to the announcement that the Government will make a statement upon this Motion to set up a Committee of Supply, is it proposed that the Debate upon that question shall be so wide that the whole question of what took place yesterday and its consequences can be raised?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think we must leave that point in the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. MacDONALD: Then I put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, if it is your intention to rule in such a way that on the discussion of this Motion as great liberty will be given for Debate as would be given if the Government were to move "That the House do now adjourn "

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Motion "That the House do now adjourn," we may discuss things all round the world.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I, with your leave, Sir, correct my question? Will the Debate be as wide as a Debate upon the Adjournment Motion, as far as the events of yesterday are concerned—in that respect only?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister is to restore the dropped Order of Supply. The Order was dropped by reason of the incident of yesterday. Therefore, discussion can take place on any matter relevant to the incident which calls for this Motion. That, I think, is quite clear,

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by the Government be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 278: Noes, 191.

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[4.3 p.m.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Archer-Shee, Lieut-Colonel Martin
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jephcott, A. R.


Baird, Rt. Han. Sir John Lawrence
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Balfour. George (Hampstead)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Kennedy, Captain M. S Nigel


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Ednam, Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Barnston, Major Harry
Ellis. R. G.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Becker, Harry
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bell, Lieut.Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Erskine-Bolsi, Captain C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lorden, John William


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Falcon, Captain Michael
Lorimer, H. D.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lort-Williams. J.


Berry, Sir George
Fawkes. Major F. H.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Lumley, L. R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Blundell, F. N.
Foreman, Sir Henry
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Brass, Captain W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Furnes, G. J.
Manville, Edward


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Garland, C. S.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Briggs, Harold
Gates, Percy
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Goff, Sir R. Park
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Gould, James C.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Milne, J. S. Ward law


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Bruford. R.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bruton, Sir James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E,
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Buckey. Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Halstead, Major D.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Murchison, C. K.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nall, Major Joseph


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harrison, F. C.
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Button, H. S.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Flnchley)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Calne, Gordon Hall
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cassels, J. D.
Herbert. Col. Hon. A. (Yeovll)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen.J. (Westminster)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Paget, T. G.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hoher, Gerald Fitzroy
Pennefather, De Fonbianque


Clayton, G. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Penny, Frederick George


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hood, Sir Joseph
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, John W. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cockerill. Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Perring, William George


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Pielou, D. P.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Houfton, John Plowright
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Howard, Capt, D, (Cumberland, N.)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Cope, Major William
Howard-Bury, Lieut-Col. C. K.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff. South)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Preston, Sir W. R.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hughes. Collingwood
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hume, G H.
Privett, F. J.


Croft. Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Crook C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hurd, Percy A.
Raine, W.


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Tubbs, S. W.


Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Shepperson, E. W.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Shipwright, Captain D.
Wallace, Captain E.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Remnant, Sir James
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Waring, Major Walter


Rentoul, G. S.
Skelton, A. N.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wells, S. R.


Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
White, Col. G D. (Southport)


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Sparkes, H. W.
Willey, Arthur


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Stanley, Lord
Winter-ton, Earl


Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W )
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wise, Frederick


Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Wolmer. Viscount


Rothschild, Lionel de
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood. Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Russell, William (Bolton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. c.


Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Sutcliffe, T.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Yale, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford. Henley)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)



Sandon, Lord
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Titchfield, Marquess of
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



NOES.


Adams, D.
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
Murray. R. (Renfrew, Western)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Newbold, J. T. W.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Guthrle, Thomas Maule
Nichol, Robert


Asqulth, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Attlee, C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
O'Grady Captain James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hancock, John George
Paling, W.


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Parker, H. (Hanley)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hayday, Arthur
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Bonwick, A.
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Phillipps, Vivian


Bowdler, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Philipson, Hilton


Briant, Frank
Herriotts. J.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Brotherton, J.
Hogge. James Myles
Pringle, W. M. R.


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Buckle, J.
Irving, Dan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Johnston. Thomas (Stirling)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Chapple. W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. l. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rose, Frank H.


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Royce, William Stapleton


Collison, Levi
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Saklatvala, s.


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Salter, Dr. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenyon, Barnet
Scrymgeour. E.


Darbishire, C. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Sexton, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Shakespeare, G. H.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawson. John James
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lee, F.
Shinwell. Emanuel


Dunnico, H.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Linfield, F. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lowth, T.
Simpson, J. Hope


Edmonds, G.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Sitch, Charles H.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
M'Entee, V. L.
Snell, Harry


Evans. Ernest (Cardigan)
McLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Philip


Fairbairn, R. R.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Spencer. George A. (Broxtowe)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James l.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Foot, Isaac
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Gilbert, James Daniel
Maxton, James
Sturrock, J. Leng


Gosling, Harry
Middleton, G.
Sullivan, J.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Millar, J. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough. West)


Greenall, T.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
mosley, Oswald
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muir. John W.
Thornton, M.


Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murnin, H.
Tillett. Benjamin


Groves, T.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) '
Trevelyan, C. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Turner, Ben




Wallhead, Richard C.
Wheatley, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Warne, G. H.
White, Charles F, (Derby, Western)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Whiteley, W.
Wright, W.


Webb, Sidney
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Weir, L. M.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Welsh, J. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



Westwood, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —




Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.


Question, "That this House will, to-morrow, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply—[Colonel Leslie Wilson]—put accordingly, and agreed to.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

RATING BURDENS.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the need for a redistribution of rating burdens, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr Bruford]

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATIONS).

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the present qualifications entitling a British subject to become a Member of Parliament., and to move, a Resolution.— [Mr Lorimer.]

POSTAL FACILITIES IN RURAL AREAS.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to postal facilities in rural areas, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Guthrie.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

HOUSING, ETC. (No. 2), BILL,

to amend the enactments relating to the housing of the working classes (including the amendment and revocation of building bye-laws), town planning, and the acquisition of small dwellings," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; supported by Captain Elliot; to be read a, Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND CHILDREN (AMENDMENT) BILL,

to amend Section two of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act, 1920," presented by Mr. RHYS DAVIES; supported by Mr. Robert Wilson, Mr. William Thorne, and Mr. Clynes; to be read L Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Order for Motion, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," read.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I should be very grateful, and I am sure that the whole House would, if you, Mr. Speaker, would be good enough to give us a ruling upon the procedure that is now proposed to be adopted. As I understand it, there is no precedent exactly on all fours with it.. It is not a ease of an Amendment being carried to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." The whole question was negatived. The House, therefore, has decided that Mr. Speaker do not leave the Chair. Where you get an Amendment carried, that Amendment becomes an instruction to the Government. to act upon it; and, the House having decided to instruct the Government to act upon an Amendment, the situation changes and the House then properly proceeds to agree to the Motion," That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." So far as I have been able, in the short time at my disposal, to investigate a very complicated question, I have only discovered precedents of that. kind. What happened last night was, as I said, that the whole Question was negatived. It is perfectly true that the word "now" was part of the Question and that it, therefore, may be argued that the "now" referred to 20 minutes past nine last. night, and that if this Question is revived to-morrow, as I understand it is the intention of the Prime Minister to move, the "now" will not refer to 20 minutes past nine last night, but to some time during to-morrow evening.
The point I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, so that your ruling will be put on definite record, is this—Is it not, as a matter of fact., a case of repetition? The House last night decided, not in respect to any one point, but in respect to the whole Question, that it. was dissatisfied with the action of the Government, and declined to allow you to leave the Chair. It. is perfectly true that., under old conditions, when you, Sir, had to be moved out of the Chair on every
occasion when the House went into Committee of Supply, the "now" in the Resolution then put referred from week to week to the actual business that was to be discussed when you did leave the Chair. But the new Rule makes the Division and the decision of last night a definite decision of the House that, in respect to the whole of the Civil Service Estimates, the House is dissatisfied with the Government. To place at the foot of the Paper again to-morrow, exactly the same Resolution that was put on yesterday is a case, I argue, of repetition, and therefore, if the Government is to get out of this difficulty, it must resort to some other way of doing so.
May I further submit, that the wording of the new Standing Order 17 makes it pretty clear? It is stated there that "on first going into supply," you, shall have to be moved out of the Chair. You cannot have 20 attempts, I submit to you with respect, to get into Committee for the first time. When the Irish party used the old rule for the purposes of obstruction, and when the House protected itself against obstruction and took away private Members' privileges in order that private Members might not be, able to use their privileges for purely obstructive purposes, Rule 17 was drafted, and the responsibility was put upon the Government to get the Speaker out of the Chair at the first attempt. When the Government fails to get the Speaker out of the Chair at the first attempt, it is a Vote of Censure on them. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a proper way for the Government to get out of the difficulty in which it finds itself in a Vote of Censure, by putting down a repetition of the Resolution of yesterday and putting you—I do not mean that there is any attempt., and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not attach any wrong meaning to my words—in a very difficult position, I submit, because the Government has got to abuse the repetition rule in order to get itself out of the difficulty of having had a Vote of Censure passed upon it last night.

Mr. SPEAKER: Although the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) was perfectly right in saying that there is no exact precedent for the present occasion, I cannot. hold with him that to propose a second time "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" is,
in the sense in which he used it—a Motion of repetition.
Standing Order No. 17, to which he referred, must be read in conjunction with the general practice of the House, which was not entirely overridden, but. was restricted, by the passage of that Standing Order No. 17. Therefore, in my view, it is quite in order for the Government, when the question of my leaving the Chair has been negatived, on a subsequent occasion to renew that Motion. But, of course, it follows from that, and, I think, ought to follow from that, that the House will thereby gain an additional opportunity of discussing its grievances before entering on Committee of Supply.
The hon. Gentleman raised another point with reference to Standing Order No. 17, in relation to the words "on first going into supply." The House yesterday did not go into Supply, and the meaning of that Order is that when the House has gone into Supply, as it always does instantly, even if only pro forma, when it has got the Speaker out of the Chair, then on all subsequent occasions in the same Session Supply is in progress. Standing Order No. 17 instructs the Speaker, when Supply is called in those circumstances, to leave the Chair without. Question put. I think that is quite. clear, and answers the point of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MacDONALD: Would the House give me indulgence to put this second point of another character? If you, Mr. Speaker, put the Question from the Chair tomorrow that you do now leave the Chair, how do you propose to treat the Amendments that have been balloted for in relation to the first Resolution, which has now been negatived and has disappeared from the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Sessional Order provides for taking such Motions on going into Committee of Supply in the order of their precedence by Ballot, and I shall to-morrow, if the House restore the Order of Supply, take them in that order. That is to say., the first one having been. disposed of, I shall take. the second one, if it be moved, and, if not, I shall take the third.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I make my point a little bit clearer'? The Resolution to which those Amendments apply, the occasion for which the Ballot was held, was settled last night, and
terminated. To-morrow it is a new Resolution and a new occasion, and the point I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is this—Ought you not to instruct that another Ballot should he taken, in order that Amendments should be decided upon in the ordinary way as hitherto?

Mr. SPEAKER: 'That point occurred to me, I must say, and I therefore looked into it very carefully; but the Sessional Order and the Ballot taken thereunder related to the first occasion of going into Supply. That occasion was to have been yesterday, but certain things happened, and that occasion will, or may, therefore, be to-morrow.

Lord HUGH CECIL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the essential reason why this Motion can be repeated is not that the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," is essentially a Motion of procedure, and not a Motion of substance, and therefore that the rule of repetition does not apply?

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point. of Order. When this Standing Order was originally drafted, was the word "now" ever intended by those who drafted it to apply to a particular occasion like this, to be used by the Government as a cloak for a piece of sharp practice?

Sir ERNEST POLLOCK: On a further point of Order. May I ask whether, in accordance with the constant practice of the House, the importance of the word "now" is not illustrated time and again by the ordinary Amendment which is put that a Bill be read "upon this day six months." In order that that Amendment can he put at all, a Motion has to be made. that the word "now" be left out in order that the words "on this clay six months" may be added. The importance therefore of the word "now" as an integral part of the Motion is shown by the constant practice of the House. As a point of Order, I submit, in answer to the observation which has been made by the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan), that the House has constantly emphasised the importance of the word "now" in any Motion dealing with the Second Reading of a Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: That. is quite correct. The Amendment that a Bill be read "upon this day six months," instead of
"now" depends on that particular use of the word "now," but I was taking rather broader ground than that. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), when Standing Order 17 was passed, it was, of course, passed in relation to the then existing circumstances. All the Standing Orders have their bearing on what I may call the common law of the House, and it is in this respect that I gave my ruling.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Might I ask you, in order that I may myself be clear, assuming that the Question be put from the Chair to-morrow, or whenever it be put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," do I understand that your view is that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Duncan Millar) will then have the right to rise in his place, and move the Amendment which is on the Paper in his name? [An HON. MEMBER: "He has already done so! "] No, I do not think he has done so at all.

Mr. SH INWELL: You want to claim the credit for it now. [Interruption.]

Sir J. SIMON: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether either yesterday or tomorrow, if to-morrow be used in the way proposed, will count as one of the 20 allotted days in Supply?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, neither yesterday nor to-morrow, in that case, can be counted as an allotted day in Supply. With regard to the other point, I have already said that it will be my duty to call the Amendment which stood second on the Order Paper yesterday, and which was not taken.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will. To-morrow, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): After the somewhat difficult points of order which have been put and elucidated, I propose to take a very short time to consider what it is that has really happened. What actually happened is that the Government were caught napping. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and Interruption.] Some valuable time has been lost, and I am con-slimed myself by a certain number of chastened reflections. I have myself sat
in this House so many years as a Member of a small Opposition—a much smaller Opposition than the present—[An HON. MEMBER: "And more noisy!"]—an Opposition often trampled on by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—that I can appreciate to the full, and sympathise with, the triumph and the exhibitions of triumphant joy of hon. Members opposite. But it is quite true, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) said, that we cannot find an exact precedent to what happened, and perhaps the reason is- not so far to seek, for there is no precedent, as far as I am aware, for a Division taking place on that particular Motion. When I say that, I admit at once that the Opposition had the most perfect right to divide, and I admit at once it was laxity on the part of the Government that they were not prepared to meet it. But I do say this, that the Division last night is no proof at all that the Government have lost the confidence of the House of Commons—An HON. MEMBER: "It did last night! "]—and I put before the House this Motion, "That this House will To-morrow resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," in order that, without delay, the business of the House may be proceeded with, that we may get on with Estimates, which it is necessary for us to pass, and that we may proceed once more to the necessary business, to perform which we were sent here, with the least amount of delay.

Mr. MacDONALD: There, is one thing in which I hope to follow the example of my right hon. Friend, and that is, I propose to be brief. I can quite sympathise with the Government. with the same fulness of heart that my right hon. Friend told us he sympathises with us. The Government, after a series of unexampled defeats at by-elections, find themselves faced with an unexampled defeat so far as the records of the House of Commons are concerned. Really, in those circumstances, the Government deserve the most hearty commiseration of all parties and all sections of the House. But my right hon. Friend was a little suspiciously economical with the truth when he recited what happened last night. He said, "What happened last night? There was an accident."
That is a very delightful way in which to clothe a disaster. What happened last night was that the Government were defeated by seven votes upon a Motion that was put from the Chair, and that was bound to be voted upon last night, in view of the character of the speech which closed the Debate on behalf of the Government. That is not all. My right hon. Friend says that his supporters were not- here. I can assure him be is quite wrong in that respect. I had the privilege of being here, and I saw, both in the Lobby and on those benches when the Division was going on, supporters of the Government. The Government were defeated last night, not because it was a snatch vote at all, not because there was an unexpected Division. The Government were defeated last night because a certain number of their supporters refused to support them on the Motion. [An HON. MEMBER: "They ran away! "] All I can say is, that I saw one or two faces in that. Lobby that are familiar to me sitting here and looking across the Floor. I cannot say whether there were two, three, or four. [HON. MEMBERS: Four! "] The chief point I want to make is this: I want no mere debating points—not at all. Moreover, I want no mere partisan capital. Certainly, if we have defeated the Government, we have defeated the Government, and we arc entitled to say we have defeated the Government. But let me say that I am wishful that the Government may benefit by their chastened defeat., and will be more careful in future when dealing with important industrial questions that have been the subject. of pledges given when their supporters were in search of seats.
When I raised. the point of Order, I referred to the previous kind of experience that Governments have had. They have moved that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and then the House has inserted, time and time again—the precedents are almost innumerable—words making declarations about policy, and those words have, been then taken, as I stated in putting my point of order, as a sort of mandate—I do not hear so much about mandates as I did in the last Parliament in which I sat, but I am reviving the word—as a sort of mandate to the Government, and the Government have done their best to carry them out. I am not talking as Leader of the
Opposition or as a Member of the Opposition now. I believe I carry with me the whole House when I say the immediate reason why the Government were defeated last night was that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a speech upon the subject of the Lytton entrants, which numbers of Members opposite declined to accept. Every section -of the House was ready to back us, and I sympathise most heartily with the hon. Members who went into the Lobby out of loyalty to the Government, in order to support them after that speech was delivered. The decision of the House. last night was that the Government must change that declared policy as far as entrants to the Civil Service are concerned. I think the Government ought to give us a pledge on that point before we give it this Motion.
Briefly, the position is this. I am not going to take up the time of the House by reciting the points of the Lytton Report. T am sure every Member of the House understands that the criticisms directed against the Government were briefly these. The Government have appointed what is called the Anderson Committee, which has got a sort of roving commission to inquire into everything relating to wages of the Civil 'Service, Army and Navy, and so on. The, grievance of the entrants is an immediate one, and, while this House is sitting, it is affecting the character of the work and the state of mind of civil servants in every Department of State in this country. Therefore, the.first point that was urged against the Government in that respect was that they must act far more quickly than the Anderson Committee can act. That was the first point. The second point was that the Anderson Committee, in its composition, does not give the sense of security to those people that they desire. Again. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that when a Committee like this has been appointed, it. is not enough that they should satisfy themselves that exceedingly able, honourable and just men and women are appointed, because if the Committee is going to give the tranquillity that its appointment is expected to give, the people whose grievances are to he inquired into must have some confidence in the Committee, and it is perfectly plain that the confidence required is not reposed in the, Anderson Committee.
Therefore, the request has been made again and again that a Select Committee of this House should be appointed to consider this question. That is the second point.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: On.a point of Order. The Question before the House is that the Committee of Supply should be set up. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with questions which can be raised when the Question is again put, that you now leave the Chair. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in dealing with these questions now, and ought he not to wait until the setting up of the Committee of Supply has been agreed to?

Mr. SPEAKER: There could not, of course, be a Debate on the merit of these proposals. If the present Motion be carried, that will be the very Question before the House to-morrow, and on which the House can again refuse to allow me to leave the Chair, if they be not satisfied with the reply made by the Government. But I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member stating simply what was the case.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am exceedingly obliged to Mr. Speaker for protecting me. in that way, but, as a matter of fact, I have finished. I was just coming to my last sentence. The only thing I wish to do is to make perfectly clear what., from my point of view, at any rate, is the reason why the Government were defeated last night, that the defeat should be taken almost as though an Amendment had been carried to the Motion, and that the Government should regard it practically as a mandate. I think it is quite clear, without discussing the merits of the case, and without going into the outs and ins of the case, that the House should have before it the reason of the defeat last night—not the laxity of the Government., not the laxity of my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Leslie Wilson) who has never been a lax Whip, as we all know, but the muddle, the difficulty, in which the Government themselves placed their followers last night. That—and that alone—was the reason why there was a majority of seven against the Government. All I wish to do is to make it perfectly clear that we desire the Government should say what its view is as
to the question of the ex-service men which was raised last night. I assure ray right hon. Friend (Mr. Baldwin) that had he been here last night he cannot possibly explain this phenomena in the terms he used. That being so, this House, I think, and the Opposition in particular, is entitled to get a definite statement from the Government that if this Resolution is carried to-day it will he carried with an understanding that the whole question of the Lytton entrants shall be reconsidered in accordance with the Debate that was conducted, and which issued in the defeat of the Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I had not intended to press any observations upon the House. [HON, MEMBERS "Oh! "] But I was rather astonished to see no other hon. Member rise and mention the obvious fact of the situation which I do not think has been sufficiently underlined by the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—very naturally so, perhaps in view of the position that he is speaking from the Despatch Box. I, however, am not under any such restraint, and I want to put it that the Government, in their proposed action, have skimmed all too lightly over the Constitutional precedents of the past. On the Government receiving a defeat, with their Whips on, of the character of that of last. night., I do not think I am going too far when I say that their easy method of getting over the defeat last night is a piece of effrontery. [Interruption] No. not characteristic of others. The last Government — the Coalition Government of evil memory—was defeated—with, I may say, some slight assistance from myself—on two or three occasions. I think their most notable. defeat was during the passage of the Aliens Bill, when they were beaten on the question of alien pilots. The House was adjourned for 24 hours and consultations took place on the position. The hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), I remember, was called to Downing Street and also Mr. Horatio Bottomley, and Lord Carson—then Sir Edward Carson—who were looked upon as leaders of the movement. As a matter of fact, the case was a most flagrant one and the Government well deserved defeat —and the Opposition contributed very materially to it—quite apart from their extremely anti-alien policy.
On that occasion there was some doubt of the Government's intention. There was some talk of resigning. Hon. Members concerned were able to force from the Government certain concessions on the terms they required on the Aliens Bill, which, I considered, dealt very unjustly with the pilots. This was still further extended to, as I thought, the very serious and undignified restrictions on foreigners in this country. There was no question of the Government putting forward another Motion, and there was no talking about being caught napping, and sleeping on that occasion, of Members not being present, and getting out of it in that way. No, the occasion was made one in which the temporary Opposition, the temporary combination of dissatisfied persons—my hon. Friend opposite, myself, Mr. Bottomley and others—was used to get certain concessions from the Government and, therefore, I think it proves that the occasion was looked upon as a serious one.
This is not the sort of episode to be lightly passed over. The Government has been in power for some five months and they have received a fair and square defeat in the Division Lobby. It was perfectly fair. I think will carry general agreement when I say that there was no special engineering of the situation. Nothing of the sort! It was simply the great opposition on the part of the Government's own supporters, and the disaffection of certain hon. Members on the other side who, I am glad to say, still have some remnants of conscience left even after supporting this Government for five months. I say, to pass this over without any reference to the constitutional practice of resignation after defeat is to treat this House with effrontry. It is not as if this defeat in the Division Lobbies went alone. It must be connected with, and the explanation of it found, in the obvious lack of confidence in the Government which has been expressed on every occasion when the electorate had a chance, and which has made it impossible for the Government to find a seat for the Law Officer of Scotland, for nowhere throughout the length and breadth of Scotland can there he found a seat—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is out of order in discussing Scottish affairs.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If I am out of order in criticising this proposed method of escape from the predicament in which the Government find themselves, I beg to say, with great respect, that I am not far out of order in pointing out the obvious instability in the country as a reason for this House not permitting without some protest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide! "]—this shilly-shallying way of escape from the retribution the Government justly deserve by their ineptitude and inefficiency. [Interruption]—And I could not allow the Motion to be put from the Chair by you without making these few observations—[Interruption]—and perhaps hon. Members of the Labour party above the Gangway will sober down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh! "] However, I believe I am expressing the indignation felt by the politically-conscious public outside, which is not to allow this trampling on the constitutional usages of Parliament. A defeat in the Division Lobbies, with the Government Whips on, should mean resignation, and resignation, I believe, would be demanded by the public.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I desire to put a point to the Government on behalf of the ex-service men. Last night it was decided—[An HON. MEMBER: "You were not here last night," and Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps hon. Members will allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Government will have to resign, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members will be good enough to recognise that other hon. Members have a right to be heard when they address the Chair.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Last night it was decided that you should not leave the Chair because a particular grievance of the Lytton entrants was not being met already. The Government decided upon a Select Committee on the question of the Lytton entrants, and the permanent Civil Service; and it was asked in view of the pressure of the matter that the initial salary question should be taken first. Very well!

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is proceeding to discuss a question
which can be pressed to-morrow. I do not see how the Government can answer him to-day.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Then I want to put a question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter is put down as the first business to-morrow.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I only wished to put the constitutional point, the House having refused to grant Supply until the grievances of the Lytton entrants had been attended to, whether the least thing the Government could do was not to say, "We will accept that point at any rate." That, I submit to you, is not only acting with good grace and justice, but constitutionally.

Mr. SPEAKER: That will be a very proper point to be put to the Government to-morrow.

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. You, Mr. Speaker, say that this matter can be pressed to an issue to-morrow. I want to ask how it can be pressed to an issue to-morrow if the result is the same as it was last night. We shall be in the same position and will be unable to get any further. If the Government act again as they are acting to-day we will never really get to an issue on present lines.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think I should clear up that point, and say exactly what I have in mind. It was impossible yesterday to come to an issue, because the Motion was the second on the Paper, and, modified in form, was carried as an Amendment to the Question: "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Tomorrow it will be in the power of the House to take the Amendment as a substantive Motion. That is where the difference is between now and to-morrow.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think the House will realise from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition that we wish to treat this question in a really moderate and decent spirit, and that we certainly do not wish to treat it as a joke. I think it is due to the House and due to the attitude which the Leader of the Opposition has taken that the Government should not allow this Debate to close without some speech from the Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why "]—
without their reply to the proposition which the Leader of the Opposition has laid before them, and on which the point of this Debate and the attitude of this Debate, and, I may say, probably the temper of this Debate, will very largely turn. I wish to make clear the policy the Leader of the Opposition is pursuing and that we support. We have not made this an attempt merely to score a point over the Government. We have not pressed this constitutional and practical issue as practically every Leader of an Opposition in his place has always done. My hon. Friend has not done that. We and the party which he represents deliberately came to the conclusion that if we can utilise what happened last night to get justice done and to get satisfaction for these poor men, the ex-service men, and could depend upon it, we would largely sacrifice that tactical advantage in this House for the sake of these men. I will give an account of what happened in similar circumstances before; but I venture to say that the oldest Members of this House will recognise that when an incident of this kind takes place, it is used by the Opposition for strategical and purely political advantages. In this case, the Leader of the Opposition has not pressed that point of view at all. What he has said to the Government is this: "We have an advantage over you up to the present moment, and we ask you, in order that we May decide what our attitude and action shall be, to give us this undertaking for these ex-service men outside."
May I recall what happened in very similar circumstances in this House when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was Prime Minister, and his Government was defeated on the Financial Resolution relating to the Home Rule Bill of 1912. I wish to put that forward, because I think the House will agree that we are on these benches behaving with far greater restraint than hon. Gentlemen opposite showed at. that time, and we are doing so because we wish to help the ex-service men rather than to carry on the old political practice of using these incidents merely for party purposes in the old party warfare which was played as a game. [Interruption.] The Government in 1912 was defeated on the Financial Resolution relating to the
Home Rule Bill. It was a defeat not by any means on such a vital issue as has taken place now. [Interruption.] It was a pure snap vote. There was not a single Member on the Government Benches who voted for the Opposition. Tim Government then proposed to carry through a policy practically the same as the Government is carrying through to-day. They proposed a Resolution which practically reversed a decision the House had then taken. The Speaker at that time ruled—as you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled—that the action of the Government was in order, but the Opposition felt that to deliberately reverse a decision of the House by that method was so gross a breach of the rights of the House that the Prime Minister was shouted down at the Treasury Box.
As I sat on the second bench below the Gangway, I noticed that one of the most active Members of the House in that operation was the present Prime Minister, the present Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—who on that occasion emphasised his arguments by hurling a volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT at the Treasury Bench—and the Noble Lord the Member for the ancient University of Oxford (Lord H. Cecil), who to-day has raised a point of Order of high constitutional principle. As a result, the Speaker had to adjourn the House owing to disorder. The business of the House was suspended because the Speaker at that time was unable to prevent the present Prime Minister and his colleagues from shouting for two hours together, so that not even the Prime Minister of that day could be heard. I have recalled that incident to point out to the House that the present Opposition, compared with the Opposition before the War, are behaving with restraint and decorum. I invite any Member of the House to notice the contrast between the tone and the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to-day and the tone and attitude of the Prime Minister when he was in that position then. I use this illustration to ask once again that the Government should pay some respect to the rules of this House and the rights of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that our attitude and the restraint and decorum shown on this side of the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Jack Jones! "] May I say,
in response to that interruption, that the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) is a perfect model of Parliamentary etiquette compared with those on the other side of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be rather unprofitable to enter into these comparisons between hon. Members.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: There was an occasion in the last Parliament, when the Government were defeated on an issue somewhat similar to this—the issue of teachers' pensions—and the Government then accepted the verdict of the House, and appointed a Committee specially to reconsider the attitude which up to that time the Government had taken. We are fighting for the ex-service men outside. We ask the Government to respond to the invitation made to them by the Leader of the Opposition. Let them give us a statement now, that as a result of last night's Vote the case of the ex-service men shall be reconsidered. We are entitled to it, and it will determine largely the nature of this Debate, and the method by which hon. Members sitting round me will deal with the subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to ask the nature of the statement which will be made tomorrow, because that would open up other questions. He. is entitled to ask that, when the Question be moved and the Amendment be moved to-morrow a further Debate will take place.

Mr. MacDONALD: On a point of Order. May I, Mr. Speaker, put this to you? Is it competent for you to rule upon the business that is to be before us to-morrow, and to limit the discussion of a matter which happened last night and which is closely germane to the subject we are now discussing?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is a point which I have made clear. If the House agree to this Motion, the House knows that there will be a statement made to-morrow on the subject.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: On a point of Order. The Leader of the Opposition made a speech which was in order. He asked the Government certain definite questions. He asked them to give certain definite undertakings. In so far as the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was in order, I submit that a speech from
the Government Bench will be in order provided it does not proceed beyond the ambit of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore we want a reply. We submit that a reply to the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition can he given now, and an undertaking can also be given. This is necessary in order to determine our attitude in the Division Lobby and in this House.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of us through long experience in the Labour movement have tried, to the best of our ability, to preach constitutionalism to the members connected with our various organisations, and we have done our best, as far as we have been able to persuade our members, to always act within the bounds provided by the democratic constitution of Great Britain. On this point I know what nay reputation is, and I am proud of it. I have not been before the magistrates for the same crimes as some of my hon. Friends, and when I have been before them it has always been for something which I have been proud of and for which I was willing to suffer. Therefore I have no apologies to make on that score. In this particular case, we have had, for the first time, an exhibition of unconstitutionalism from the constitutional party. A vote was taken in this House in proper form. Whips were issued to the Members of all parties, and they were asked to be here by a certain time, because a great issue was being raised in the ordinary Parliamentary form. A large number of hon. Members failed to turn up, and some of those who did turn up were cowardly enough to refuse to vote, while others, acting on conscientious grounds, voted against their party. I think it will he a bad day for England when we lose our conscience, and hand it over to the Orange Lodges. The matter which was raised last evening affects every constituency in Great Britain. We argued it, but we did not do so from a party point of view, because the Labour party have never tried to make capital out of the ex-service men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh! "] I make hon. Members opposite a present of all the political capital they have made out of it. What we did for these men, we did simply because they are Lone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. Quite 90 per cent. of them belong to our class; they are our brothers, and there is scarcely one
among them who has not had some relative who has gone under in the War. You are the manufacturers of their destiny, you are the people who sent them to their death. A million of them have left their bones to bleach on the battlefields of the world, and two million of them have come home almost too weak to get their own living and they have had to throw themselves on to the parish. No less then 800 of them are in the asylums of this country certified as being insane. [HON. MEMBERS: Divide!;']

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that is a question which arises on the matter which is now before the House.

Mr. JONES: I know that I am never in order, but I am glad that I have got that in at any rate. In my own constituency a number of young men joined the Army before their time, at the age of 16 and 17, and they gave false ages in order to get into the Army.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already stated that that is a subject that cannot be debated to-day. It is the same subject as that which was debated yesterday, and it will be a subject for discussion tomorrow.

Mr. JONES: As constitutionalists, surely we are entitled to ask the Government to give us some understanding as to what is going to happen to these people. Are we going to have to-morrow merely a formal Government Debate, which will be decided by the Government majority, in spite of the opinion expressed by the House last night? These men are your servants and they are suffering greatly in consequence of the economic situation.

Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member is not now discussing a subject which we are going to discuss to-morrow?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) is doing his best to keep within my ruling.

Mr. JONES: All I am asking for is that we should get an honest answer to an honest question which was put honestly. The object we have in view is not to make capital out of this position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh! "] Surely if hon. Members opposite want to make
capital out of this, why cannot they do the right thing? The right thing is to treat these men fairly, and we ask the Government, Are you prepared to do the right thing by these men? Surely that is the common opinion of all of us. I am sure that if we were all allowed to vote as we feel these men would get justice, and we should save the reputation of this country for fair dealing in regard to those who have served the country so well.

Mr. BALDWIN: With the permission of the House, I rise again. A question was put to me by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), and it was a perfectly fair one. The hon. Member will realise that I had no knowledge, before I came into the House, what line he was going to take. I can only say that my right hon. Friend and I will look into this matter afresh in the light of what he has said, and I will undertake to make a statement at the beginning of business to-morrow.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it competent for me to move now, "That this House do now adjourn "?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, I do not think that would be in order.

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to put to the Prime Minister the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). It is thought outside this House that when a decision is come to by the House of Commons it is acted upon. In this instance we were asked last night to decide whether the Speaker should leave the Chair, and the reason the House voted against that Motion was because a large number of ex-service men who had been taken into the Civil Service are simply starving. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you hold that when we are dealing with starving men, a decision of this House is going to be made inoperative? You are asking us now to wait until to-morrow night, and we are to do that in order that we may get a statement from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The only statement we want from the right hon. Gentleman is that, the Government will carry out the decision which the House of Commons came to last night, which is that these men shall be paid a living wage. We were told things here last night about these men which I think every man with
any sense of feeling must have been thoroughly ashamed of. Here you have a number of men with wives and families, and they are working for the State, and yet they are obliged to depend largely upon public subscriptions in order to get their daily bread. This afternoon and on some previous afternoons an hon. Member opposite asked questions about the King's Roll and he wanted to know whether certain local authorities had their names upon it. What earthly use is it putting people's names on the King's Roll to employ disabled men when the Government of the day employs these ex-service men at starvation wages?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite out of order. We cannot enter now into these general questions. A Debate on this subject will take place to-morrow.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am trying to argue against this Motion, which is intended to restore something which the House of Commons refused to give sanction to, because the Government had not done justice to the ex-service men. I claim that before this Committee is set up the grievance we wanted to redress last night, before we give sanction to the setting up of Supply again, should be dealt with, and that the Government should be forced to give the satisfaction' we demanded last night. Supposing to-morrow. night, Mr. Speaker, the same thing happens again. Supposing we are able to defeat—after the Minister's statement,.providing it is not satisfactory—a similar Motion, and once more refuse to allow you, Mr. Speaker, to leave the Chair, what is our position? flow many times must we carry a Motion of this kind, in order that the decision of the House of Commons may become operative?

Mr. SPEAKER: There was no effective Resolution. The Amendment in question, being the second one on the Paper, could not be moved.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Government were defeated.

Mr. LANSBURY: The object of all the Debate last night was to ventilate the grievance from which certain people were suffering. We were not able to take a vote on that grievance, but we were able to take a vote which enabled us to express our opinion as to the action of the Government in connection with the griev-
ance we had been discussing. Our action was to vote against your leaving the Chair. That was our only constitutional method, and I understood that it was the proper constitutional method of showing our disapproval of the action of the Government. When you, Sir, at the end of last Session, very kindly informed me on certain rules connected with the leaving of the Chair, I understood you to say that the occasion for the redress of grievances was when that Motion was before the House. That Motion was before the House last night, and our reason for voting against the Government was to express our view that the Government should deal. with this grievance. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that, whether this is said to be a matter of party advantage or party disadvantage is not to 'the point. These men are starving; and I believe there are nearly 400 of us in this House who pledged ourselves to see that their grievances were redressed. We have sat here too long without seeing that their grievances were redressed. We have all been too silent about it. I cannot sit here and say that I am going quietly to allow this Vote to go by unless the Government does the constitutional thing. If the Government wants the House to act constitutionally, it must itself act constitutionally. The Government has been:old that this grievance has got to be rectified. We are asked to wait till to-morrow, but they have had 24 hours to think about it. If We have to wait till to-morrow, let us go home. [Interruption.] I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. We are simply asking that a Special Committee of two, three. or four people shall be set up to investigate the grievances of these men—not the whole Civil Service, but these particular ex-service men about whom you.01 talk so much. We ask that you shall investigate their grievances, and that some of them shall go before the Committee and give evidence. That is all that we are asking, and you cannot possibly deny us that. The House of Commons has said that, it ought to be done, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who a ill he allowed to speak once more, to get up and, instead of waiting till to-morrow, to give us the statement to-day.

Mr. BALDWIN: rose in, his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

HON. MEMBERS: Adjourn or answer! [Continued interruption.]

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division

Colonel Leslie awl Colonel Gibbs were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but, there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER. declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: May I appeal to hon. Members to follow the course which their Leader has suggested? [Interruption.] Hon. Members have not been attending to the business, but I have declared that the "Ayes" had it. [Interruption.]

Orders of the Day — MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. W. THORNE: On a point of Order. In face of this excitement now going on, will you adjourn the House for the time being?

Mr. SPEAKER: I can adjourn the House on the ground that a state of grave disorder has arisen, but I beg hon. Members not to compel me to do so.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask you a question, Sir? An appeal has been made to us by the Chair to accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that we should adopt an attitude somewhat different from that which is being adopted now. May I put to you this question—whether, having regard to the fact that the Government, on a very important issue last night, were defeated, they ought not to accept the consequences of that decision and give the pledge which has been asked for? [HON. MEMBERS: "Adjourn!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: If that were put to me as a point of Order, I should say that the Government have accepted the consequences, as they have already allotted one day of Parliamentary time to the question, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to make a statement to-morrow.

Mr. W. THORNE: It is perfectly obvious that you cannot go on with the business now, and I ask you to adjourn the House.

Mr. WESTWOOD: We, at least, on this side of the House demand an answer from the Government now. [Interruption.]

Mr. PRETYMAN: rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!" and "Speak up!"]

Mr. MacDONALD: The unfortunate thing is that my Friends are following the precedent set by the other side. Might I
appeal, in the interests of this House, to the Government to give us a more definite statement than they have done?

Mr. W. THORNE: You might as well adjourn, and let us get home.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the proper course is to adjourn the House for the space of an hour.

Sitting suspended at Thirteen Minutes before Six o'clock and resumed at Seven o'clock.

Mr. SPEAKER: In view of grave disorder having arisen in the House, I exercise my power under Standing Order 21, and Adjourn the House, without Question put.

Adjourned at One Minute after Seven o'Clock.